Civil society and opposition groups in Eswatini have voiced strong condemnation of a controversial deportation agreement between the United States and Eswatini. The largest opposition party has labeled the deal as “human trafficking disguised as a deportation pact,” raising serious concerns about human rights, transparency, and the treatment of detainees.
This article delves deep into the background, details, and implications of the US-Eswatini deportation arrangement, offering comprehensive insight into a developing humanitarian and political crisis.
More Read: Ukraine Sees First Major Protests of War Over Zelensky’s Anti-Corruption Reforms
Background: The US Deportation Strategy and Eswatini’s Role
In recent years, the United States has intensified efforts to deport foreign nationals who are not eligible to remain in the country. Following a recent ruling by the US Supreme Court, which cleared legal obstacles for deportations to “third countries,” the US government began arranging the transfer of detainees to nations other than their countries of origin. Eswatini, a small landlocked kingdom in southern Africa, has become one such destination.
In July 2025, the US deported five men from various countries — Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen, and Cuba — to Eswatini. The men were flown into the country, which is officially known as the Kingdom of Eswatini, formerly Swaziland, and one of Africa’s last absolute monarchies. Since 1986, King Mswati III has ruled Eswatini with near-total control, overseeing a nation with approximately 1.2 million people.
The US decision to send detainees to Eswatini, a country with limited infrastructure for processing and holding foreign nationals, immediately sparked outrage and skepticism among local civil society, opposition parties, and international human rights organizations.
Opposition’s Response: Human Trafficking Allegations
The largest opposition party in Eswatini has vehemently criticized the deportation pact with the United States. Labeling the agreement “human trafficking disguised as a deportation deal,” opposition leaders argue that the move violates the dignity and human rights of the deported men.
Opposition spokespersons highlighted concerns about the secrecy surrounding the deal. Details on the terms, conditions, and long-term plans for the deportees remain unclear, raising alarms about the transparency and accountability of the government. The men were reportedly placed in solitary confinement upon arrival, prompting fears about their safety, mental health, and access to legal representation.
Civil society groups have also echoed these concerns, emphasizing the need for the government to uphold international human rights standards and to ensure that deportees are treated humanely, not as commodities in a political deal.
The Conditions of the Deportees in Eswatini
According to official statements from the Eswatini government, the five men deported from the US are being held securely, with plans to detain them for approximately 12 months. A government spokesperson, Thabile Mdluli, confirmed the expected detention period but also stated it might be shorter or longer depending on circumstances.
The US is reportedly footing the costs for the men’s detention, and Eswatini officials have suggested that the government may receive more deportees in the future, contingent on facility availability and ongoing negotiations.
However, beyond these limited facts, little information has been disclosed about the conditions inside detention facilities. Reports that the men have been held in solitary confinement add to the apprehension from human rights advocates who worry about the psychological impact and legality of such confinement.
International Concerns and Human Rights Implications
The deportation pact between the US and Eswatini has raised serious questions at the international level, especially among human rights organizations. The opaque nature of the deal and the lack of clear protections for detainees risk violating international law, including the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Human rights groups are also concerned about the precedent set by deporting foreign nationals to third countries with limited capacity or legal frameworks to handle their cases appropriately. The use of third countries could become a strategy to bypass legal protections that exist in detainees’ countries of origin or the US, leading to potential abuses.
Moreover, the fact that some detainees have reportedly been transported through harsh conditions, such as being held in shipping containers in Djibouti before deportation, has heightened alarm bells about their treatment and wellbeing.
Eswatini’s Political Landscape and Its Impact
To understand the full implications of the deportation pact, it is critical to consider Eswatini’s unique political environment. As Africa’s last absolute monarchy, Eswatini’s government operates without the democratic checks and balances common in many countries.
King Mswati III wields extensive power over the country’s political, judicial, and security apparatus. Opposition parties have limited influence and are often subject to repression, which hampers public debate and scrutiny of government actions — including this sensitive deportation deal.
This political context adds complexity to the opposition’s outcry. The government’s willingness to cooperate with the US on deportations, despite local backlash, signals both the country’s strategic positioning in international relations and possible economic incentives, such as US funding for detention costs.
US Motivations: Why Eswatini?
The United States’ choice of Eswatini as a third country for deportations may be motivated by multiple factors:
- Legal Clearance: Following the Supreme Court ruling, the US sought countries willing to accept detainees who are not their nationals.
- Cost Efficiency: Paying local governments to house detainees may reduce the financial burden on US detention centers.
- Diplomatic Relations: The US may use these agreements to strengthen ties or exert influence in strategically significant regions.
- Limited Scrutiny: Countries like Eswatini, with limited media and civil society oversight, might be easier partners for secretive arrangements.
However, these pragmatic considerations come at the cost of detainees’ rights and raise ethical questions about outsourcing detention.
Broader Regional and Global Implications
The US-Eswatini deportation deal is part of a wider global trend where countries facing migration challenges outsource detention and deportation responsibilities to third countries. This raises several key issues:
- Human Rights Protections: The risk that deportees may face abuse, prolonged detention, or unfair treatment increases when accountability mechanisms are weak.
- Sovereignty and Ethics: Sending detainees to countries without direct ties to their nationality or asylum claims challenges norms of sovereignty and ethical treatment.
- Migration Management: Third-country deportations complicate international migration governance and potentially create diplomatic tensions.
- Legal Precedents: This deal may encourage other countries to pursue similar pacts, potentially leading to a fragmented and opaque system of deportation.
What Comes Next? Calls for Transparency and Accountability
As this story unfolds, many are calling for:
- Transparency: Governments involved must disclose full details of deportation agreements, including detainees’ rights, detention conditions, and repatriation plans.
- International Oversight: The involvement of independent international organizations is crucial to monitor detainee treatment and prevent abuses.
- Legal Safeguards: Countries should uphold international human rights law and ensure detainees have access to legal counsel, humane treatment, and timely repatriation.
- Public Engagement: Greater civil society participation in discussions on migration and deportation policies is essential, especially in countries like Eswatini with limited democratic space.
Frequently Asked Question
What is the deportation deal between the US and Eswatini?
The deportation deal allows the United States to send non-citizen detainees to Eswatini, a third country not connected to their origin, for temporary detention. The US pays for the cost of detaining them in Eswatini while arranging repatriation to their home countries.
Why is the Eswatini opposition calling it ‘disguised human trafficking’?
The Eswatini opposition claims the pact resembles human trafficking because foreign nationals are being secretly transferred, detained, and confined under unclear legal authority. They argue the arrangement lacks transparency, violates human rights, and commodifies human lives for political or financial gain.
Who are the deportees involved in the US-Eswatini agreement?
As of July 2025, five men from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen, and Cuba were deported to Eswatini. The US has also sent detainees to other third countries such as South Sudan and El Salvador, as part of a broader deportation strategy.
What is Eswatini’s role in the US deportation strategy?
Eswatini acts as a holding destination for detainees the US cannot immediately deport to their home countries. The Eswatini government detains them temporarily—up to 12 months—while the US arranges their final deportation. The deal is controversial due to the lack of public details and oversight.
What are the human rights concerns raised about this deportation pact?
Human rights advocates are concerned about:
- The use of solitary confinement
- Lack of legal representation for detainees
- Detaining migrants in countries with weak oversight
- Violating international norms by transferring people to unrelated third countries
These practices may breach the UN Convention Against Torture and other international agreements.
Has the US deported people to other third countries besides Eswatini?
Yes. In addition to Eswatini, the US has deported detainees to South Sudan, where some were reportedly held in a shipping container in Djibouti prior to transfer, and over 200 Venezuelans to El Salvador. These actions are part of a broader shift in US immigration enforcement policy.
What is being done to address the controversy around the deal?
Eswatini opposition leaders and civil society groups are calling for full transparency, legal accountability, and international oversight. Human rights organizations are urging both governments to disclose the terms of the agreement, allow independent monitoring, and ensure that detainees are treated lawfully and humanely.
Conclusion
The US deportation pact with Eswatini, condemned by opposition groups as “human trafficking disguised as deportation,” shines a spotlight on the complex and often troubling realities of modern migration enforcement. While the US seeks pragmatic solutions to immigration challenges, the human cost — in terms of rights, dignity, and transparency — remains deeply concerning. Eswatini’s political landscape, limited infrastructure, and the secretive nature of the deal compound fears that detainees may face harsh conditions without adequate protections. The international community must watch closely, advocate for accountability, and push for humane and legal treatment of all migrants, regardless of the geopolitical complexities involved.
